Writing For Character, rather than plugging characters into a generic plot

Write For Character

_{I’ve always found that it’s much easier to write for characters that have strong distinct personalities – iconic characters.}

_{Some cartoon writers like to begin with a high concept, (“Let’s start the picture by shooting the protagonist’s mother and then the son goes on a magical adventure to search for a replacement mother figure, but then finds out through trials that he himself is an individual and thus important to the uncaring universe and can solve his own problems with the help of a nagging assertive female.”) “Who IS the protagonist?, some junior executive asks. Everyone in the room agrees that that will come later and isn't. The story is what’s important, not who it’s about.}

_{The writers then plug in stock animation character types, and randomly choose what species the characters are. These types of stories typically use generic plots and stock animated personality types. The last 25 years of animated features have largely been about finding and loving yourself. They are peopled by a wimpy ineffectual lead, the strong assertive liberated female, the wacky fast talking irritating sidekick, the evil hook nosed villain, etc. The creators just change the “arena” and the classes of animalia, but the characters remain essentially the same simple stereotypes, all out to find themselves and be OK with who they are.}

The message seems to be: it's OK to be an individual, just not if you work in our unfeeling corporate-owned monster of a studio.

Plots

The easiest (and I think most successful) stories I’ve written or worked on were the ones that directly evolved out of the characters’ personalities, rather than just taking the characters and plugging them into a plot or situation.

Stimpy’s Invention was originally pitched as a typical “Character A makes crazy inventions that backfire on character B. Hilarity ensues”
It was rejected on that basis and I reexamined it and thought that it needed something that took advantage of Ren and Stimpy’s personalities.

Ren is a psychotic highly strung nervous wreck and Stimpy is a trusting, dumb but empathetic guy who loves Ren despite Ren’s meanness.

When Stimpy realizes that his inventions are driving Ren nuts, he doesn’t blame his screwy inventions, he instead thinks Ren just needs a cure for his unhappiness. Inspired with a new mission, he decides to invent something to make Ren happy. He gets the idea for a Happy Helmet.

Once we came up with that, the story wrote itself. (Well Bob Camp and I did, but it came much easier once it wasn't about wacky inventions) Now the gags were all about the characters, not about the props.


In Ralph Bakshi’s Mighty Mouse, the best stories were the ones about the villains. MM himself didn’t have much personality, so I found it more rewarding to write about the bad guys or quirky new superhero characters we created.

Tom Minton wrote “The Littlest Tramp” which, on the surface was a satire of “The Little Match Girl” and other sappy 1930s cartoons. The satiric elements were funny, but what made the cartoon exciting for me to work on was the character dynamics between Mighty Mouse, the Polly Pineblossom (the poor flower girl) and the villainous Big Murray, whose sole motive in life was to make Polly’s life all the more miserable.

The drawings of the acting of the well defined personalities was really what sold the story.
We had other stories that kind of went nowhere, demonstrations of how weird we could be, but the episodes which most developed the personalities were the most fun stories to tell – and to draw.

STRONG CHARACTER INSPIRES PLOTS

Once you have solidly defined interesting and fun characters, you can “write” endless stories about them. Conversely, the types of characters created for “Arena” cartoons or what I call “Mom-killer cartoons” rarely outlive their first appearances.

There is also the modern vogue of random cartoon writing where everything is supposed to be a rebellious non-sequitur. No plot, no character, no structure. I don't what can be said for that. You can't teach random because everyone can do it. It's a lack of purpose or plan.



Sorry I have no pictures today, but click any of the labels below and there will be other articles with illustrations.

Next: a bit about how to write strong character dialogue.

Murray Sent Proof

Smart

Here's a picture of the person who wrote it

Pre-Caucasian Rodent and Canine

I wonder who decided to make Mickey flesh colored? Do you think there was a meeting where they debated it hotly? They must have thought that the new colors would be more identifiable to Arians.



I like both these cartoons a lot because they look so great. ...and I love the way they move. The style is so different from how we animate today. Much more experimental and tailored to the ideas.

Here's how animation moves today:

I saw some of this stuff one day in the lobby at MTV and was amazed how much stock animation acting was used. Is there some animation manual somewhere that lists all these actions and formulas? Maybe they just store all the actions in the computer and call them up as needed. I'm waiting for a good comedian to mime the way modern animation moves. Actually Eddie does it really well and it's a total crackup. You should see him do his animation song about being himself and spreading his wings to soar like an eagle.

ATTACK OF THE ANIMATION HAIR

I have always been fascinated by "animation hair". (meaning hair styles in animated cartoons from 1980 and likely into the next couple centuries) You probably have too. If you ever met anyone in real life who had animation hair, your first instinct would be to beat the crap out of him.
Characters in these modern animations do not have natural instincts though. They just magically accept the galling hairstyles - and sideways nipples.For a few years in the 1980s teenage suburban boys who hung out at the Galleria actually had a form of animation hair - hair that was half shaved and half long. I used to call it the "2 Barber Style" - as if 2 barbers had fought over what kind of hair style would look best on you and ended up compromising.
The style didn't last long in the real world (probably because of the instinct mentioned above) but it has been reverently preserved in animated features (animated features are a veritable museum of archaic and mummified atrocities). Someone in charge of how to raise your kids believes that regular folks would want to hang out with people who have this hair.


Girls have their own forms of animation hair too. This one above has "Furry Hair" - which is actually not hair at all, but a character from Disney's Robin Hood curled up asleep on top of her head.
Here's a fine example of animation hair below. It's so wacky I can't even find words to describe it.What if your Dad came home one night with this hair style?

ANIMATION EXECUTIVES REVERE SHEMP

As everyone knows, Shemp was the pillar of hipness and animation executives have always liked his hair sense. A lot of them even wore the Shemp cut themselves. Shemp lives on to this day in animated features.To offset the Shemp hair style, some animation executives have devised the "Too far away nose".I had dinner one night with a Disney TV executive to discuss some show ideas. I had trouble concentrating because he had Shemp hair, and it was flopping around in front of his face and flinging his soup at me. One thing he said did sink in though. We were talking about how we got into animation. He said: "You're lucky John. You've always known what you wanted to do and you have the talent for it. Me, I have no talent and I wandered around aimlessly from job to job for years until, by accident I just sort of fell into a job as assistant to a rich guy who had just bought Harvey Comics. He made a deal later to make some cartoons and lo and behold, we were in the cartoon business! So I just fell into it and here we are! But I don't really know anything about cartoons, myself."

Paper fold out hair was big for a while too.
This animation hair style is the natural habitat of the Cardboard crunching Bug.Under those luscious blonde flaps lives a horde of these dung rolling creatures.






Here's another indescribable animation hair style. Even Shemp wouldn't try this.

The low forehead goes well with animation hair and too far away noses.
Animation hair is so hard to keep in order that even the tiniest movement could get it out of place, so animation characters are careful to keep their facial muscles under strict control; any sudden expression might mess up their flaps or even worse - reveal their emotions.

Feel free to print this blog post out and bring it to the barber the next time you want to look as hip as the boys in animated features. - or if you want regular Joes like Moe to tear your tonsils out.

"I refuse to go out of style!" - Shemp Howard, 1952

How Many More Decades?

How long do you think it will take before they get tired of doing this? Or do they even realize that it's the same every time?

I mean you gotta wonder, if you have hundreds of millions of dollars to spend and years on end to make a movie, surely you could come up with a new design and expression.

Why aren't they embarrassed?

Pete Emslie's Theory Of Design VS Humor

Cute generic Disney design VS cute specific Jones design

This Disney style is the culmination of their search for perfect mathematical design balance, inoffensive cuteness and lack of specificity. Once they found this balance, they stuck with it until it eventually deteriorated with the passage of time.

These Snow White Deer are early attempts in the search - not quite there yet.

Pete sent me this email and his theory: (I added the headings)

Hi John,

JOHN THINKS "SPECIFIC" MEANS UNGAINLY IN DESIGN

I have a theory. (See, not only Eddie has them.) The more I read of your thoughts on "Specific" vs. "Generic" characters and the examples you use to illustrate each type, it seems like there's a pattern developing here. Most of the characters that you seem to respond to more viscerally as "Specific" types in terms of both personality and visual design, also tend to be rather ungainly in their design (with some notable exceptions.)

For instance, you love the work of print cartoonists like Milt Gross, Basil Wolverton and Don Martin for their skewering of human types and ability to make truly funny drawings. You've also recently been lauding, as you so aptly described it, the "Rat Pack" brand of humour that you see in "BC" and "The Wizard of Id", where there's less politeness and a more rugged, freewheeling approach to being funny.

Yet one thing that all of these print cartoonists seem to have in common is a flair for creating humour out of designs that are actually rather ungainly. Even your favourite animated cartoon character,"Popeye", who of course originated in the newspaper funnies, has an unusual appeal in that he looks like he's been Frankensteined out of various spare parts!

Now don't misunderstand what I'm saying here, as I'm not suggesting that any of these designs are amateurish or unappealing, but I do find that there is a spontaneity and visual clunkiness to them that maybe allows better for that broader type of belly-laugh humour that you enjoy.

PETE THINKS I THINK THAT "CONSTRUCTION" IS SYNONYMOUS WITH "GENERIC"

I guess I kind of find it ironic in that, for all of your high regard for good solid construction in animation design, it is really these characters that don't seem to slavishly follow those rules that really get a gut response from you. I'm actually wondering if all of the animated film characters that you praise for having good solid construction, yet also tend to dismiss as being "Generic" (likely because of their solid construction whether you realize it or not,) are maybe fighting a losing battle in trying to appeal to the John K sensibilities.

WARNER CARTOONS HAVE TO CHEAT TO MAKE THEIR CHARACTERS ENTERTAINING

Even the Warners characters that, on the surface may seem to disprove my theory, perhaps appeal to you because of the rather ungainly poses and expressions they take which requires the cartoonist to radically cheat the rules of construction to pull off effectively. Am I making sense? Maybe not, but read on...

PRINT CARTOONS CAN CHEAT, SO THEREFORE CAN BE MORE ENTERTAINING

You see, the way I see it is that print cartoonists have a huge advantage generally over those in the animation biz, in that they don't have to be nearly so accountable with their drawings. You can read a comic strip like "BC" or anything Milt Gross drew and not have to see whether or not all of the details are matching up perfectly from panel to panel. Nobody cares how Wiley's face goes from a front view to a profile or whether he's got exactly the same number of facial hairs on his ugly mug as he turns. The mind's eye fills in the missing movement and doesn't notice any inconsistencies like that. Because of this freedom from absolute consistency of design, print cartoonists can be extremely spontaneous in their drawings, potentially creating wilder, broader character personalities and actions if they so choose to.

This struck me the other day when a friend had lent me the latest book of political caricatures by British cartoonist, Gerald Scarfe. As I was looking through it and admiring his audacity, it also occurred to me that one probably couldn't successfully translate that type of drawing to consistently drawn animated characters. I'm not even referring to just the sheer amount of pen strokes (which would be impossible), but rather, the overall approach that Scarfe takes in his design. Frankly, I'm not so sure that Don Martin or Johnny Hart would fare much better either.

HANNA BARBERA IS BROAD CARTOONING BECAUSE IT'S FLAT AND LIMITED

As you know, I happen to also share your admiration for Ed Benedict's designs for the earlier Hanna-Barbera characters. Yet I wonder if it's precisely because of the limited animation and more graphic, shape-based designs that allowed the animators to do cartoons that maybe had more in common with the work of print cartoonists than their predecessors in the theatrical animated shorts. Because of all of the visual cheats they could get away with by not having to adhere to the rules of full animation, I suspect this also allowed the H-B cartoonists to pull off broader humour in their drawings, as well as create what you yourself seem to consider more "Specific" visual designs and personality types.

PETE LIKES HIS OWN PRE-DISNEY NATURAL STYE BETTER THAN HOW THEY INFLUENCED HIM

I must admit, even in my own work, I was happier doing my own natural style of cartooning prior to when I first went to work for Disney. For all of the training and honing my craft through working for Disney, I suspect that something was also sacrificed in the bargain. For when I look back at the stuff I used to do in "The Ottawa Citizen" circa 1978 to 1984, there was a gutsier, more spontaneous quality to my cartooning, most likely due to the lesser emphasis on polished construction that I seem to strive for in my post-Disney efforts. The resulting images were, in my opinion, funnier because of their rawness and spontaneity. Heck, I might even post some up on my blog just so people can see how I started out.

Anyway, just some food for thought there for you. You can shoot down my theory now, ya' rascal.... :)

Your pal, PeteDisney's Pretend Development Department

For some reason Disney wastes a lot of time "developing" disproportioned or "ungainly" versions of all their characters before they finally decide to go with what everybody knew they wanted in the first place. Something with even proportions, no distinguishing characteristics and simple base cuteness and design balance.

Why don't they just start on day 1 with this design? It was inevitable that it's what they would end up with.

Same design as Pinocchio with less cartoony proportions - meaning more generic. Time passes at Disney - they still use the same constructions, but they get less and less exaggerated or fun
by the 80s, they lose even the ability to do the construction so have to give up imitating themselves in favor of imitating Filmation Saturday Morning cartoons

Hi Pete

very clever thoughts...

I have been wanting to do a post on this very thing for the longest time: the difference between perfectly balanced mathematical design (like Bambi) VS slightly awkward out of balance, more natural design - like Clampett. Friz on the other hand is afraid of contrasts in his work, so evens everything out like Disney - except without the gloss.

generic Sylvester with even proportions

vs caricatured more specific variations of Sylvester's design plan:

specific variations of the general Sylvester design plan



generic Daffy Duck proportions on model sheet VS
specific controlled expressions and proportions in a Clampett cartoon

USE SKILL TO MAKE SOMETHING BLAND OR EXCITING ACCORDING TO YOUR PERSONALITY

Both approaches share the same fundamental knowledge and skills, but the result I like better is the one that takes nature into consideration. Nature has an ideal plan for everything, but no part in nature fits the plan perfectly and that's what makes things interesting. The variety and deviations from the perfect plan.

Disney has no variety or humanity. It aims for a Platonic ideal of attainable perfection and the result is stagnation. It's all just a simple formula that can never make a funny face or stand out from the purely ordinary. It all has to obey their limited design and motion rules. Disney artists are entirely too afraid (and unimaginative) to do anything nearly as interesting as what surrounds them in real life. Great cartoonists draw from real life and then bend what they observe with unafraid bold imagination.

Disney cartoons are like Christian Rock. Give me the real thing, not watered down flowery mush..
DO YOU HAVE TO DRAW BAD TO DRAW INTERESTING? NO.

Real live humans are constructed, but they have much more variety, caricature, natural imbalance and pliability than any Disney character - so there I disagree with you. You don't have to draw flat to draw interesting as you seem to infer is my theory. Look at your favorite old time stars (and mine) and how interesting and unbalanced they are. What is remotely polite about Frank Sinatra? He is much more like Clampett than Disney.

As a caricaturist yourself, I would think that you especially would be repulsed by anything generic and evenly proportioned or middle of the road.

Your pal,

John

---------------------------------

Pete afterthought:


By the way, have you noticed how the rap fans are just as rabid as the anime fans in their belief that those who don't like it just haven't taken the time to truly understand it?

Me: Yes


that's why I believe we live in a very conservative age, where no one can make personal art anymore; they can only blindly copy trends that degrade from generation to generation.

today's art reminds me of Byzantine religious mosaics or Egyptian Hieroglyphs (only less skilled) that remained almost stagnant for hundreds and thousands of years because personal invention was considered blasphemous.

The Dark Ages were extremely conservative times, and I lament that we are now beginning to repeat them as our recently departed hunger for skill, knowledge, curiosity and invention is being replaced by ignorance, amateurism, fear and imitation.

Anime from 1,000 years ago and more...

" The development of the style of Byzantine Art was developed during the Fifth and Sixth centuries. From that time to the time the of the invasion by the Turks, very little change occured in the style. "Byzantine art displayed the same constancy: in the fifth and sixth centuries, it developed a formal expression that was manifested in the thousands of works of art that came to be regarded as sacred and immutable" (Marceau, Jo 1997, pg 136)..."

http://www.historylink101.com/lessons/art_history_lessons/ma/byzantine_art.htm

http://www.imagekind.com/art/egyptian_art/

Because Egyptian art followed such strict rules of representation, the style of it changed very little over the more than 3,000-year history of Egyptian art. Originality was not the motivating force in Egyptian artwork, rather following a strict rule of law and regulations was prized. The best artists were those who could copy the original most accurately....

Of course we'd have to find something more primitive than Byzantine Art for a visual equivalent to Rap - maybe something more along the lines of elephant paintings.